music industry article

[FishEye]

Interesting article today, sounds like a lot of what I read here...

 

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/business/SiliconInsider/SiliconInsider_020618.html

[TheSandwich]

Very interesting article...kind of scary.

[drummerjoe]

eek! thats the reality I preffer to be sheltered from thank you very much.

[6am eternal]

I disagreed with most of this article.

[Kingnome]

I agreed with most of the article. Especially the part about the homogenized, watered-down, lame-o fluff music, and the safe-bet taking, greedy beyond belief, no imagination-type industry.

Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time-a.

[BlueStrat]

The answer, the one the entertainment industry doesn't want to face, is to embrace this technology revolution. It means beating the Napsters and Morpheii (and not the current half-assThe answer, the one the entertainment industry doesn't want to face, is to embrace this technology revolution. It means beating the Napsters and Morpheii (and not the current half-assed industry alternative) at their own game.

 

By that, I mean putting the entire catalogue, including new releases, online. Put them on in higher quality and with faster download speeds (through compression, etc.) than anything out there right now.

 

That will kill the CD, of course, and DVDs, but they are doomed anyway.

 

A Buck a Song?

 

Obviously, that's only half the solution. You still have to make money. And that will take a complete financial re-organization of the industry.

 

What needs to be determined is how much young people will pay for a song or a first-run movie, in top quality, delivered to their homes or cars or cell phones. My bet is that the average teenager will pay a buck to own a cool new song, and five to watch a hot new movie.

 

Whatever the amount, a new payment system has to be put into place. The pieces are already there — online micropayments, debit cards for young people, security passwords for security, but no one has put them all together.

 

ed industry alternative) at their own game.

 

 

And here's the crux of the problem the writer seems to have not taken into account: file sharing has become popular not because of the convenience (it really isn't, it's time consuming) or because of quality, but because it's free and people using it don't want to have to pay for the music they get. Were it not so, Napster would not have gone bankrupt as soon as they had to start charging for their service. Because as soon as one service starts charging, another free one will pop up, or several. And making good music will no longer be profitable, and eventually we will have an even larger glut of part time wannabe musicians willing to put their mediocre stuff out for free because their egos are larger than their need to make a living.

[Kingnome]

That "making good music will no longer be profitable" thing gives me the shivers! But, I suppose that's the trade-off in the digital world. Where does that leave us, then ? A world full of garage bands making CDs on their DAWs and sending them to satellite radio stations that only play the songs that the subscriber chooses to hear?

Maybe live music will have a resurgence.

Bring back all those places to play !!

 

I really miss listening to Ron Lundy on W Aaaayyyyy BC.

"This is new from Little Stevie Wonder. It's called "Superstition !!"

 

Can we go back and start over ?

[Scheming Demon]

Interesting perspective. I think Bluestrat nailed it, though. People use those services because they're free.

 

The internet is just another medium to use to advertise your music that was previously unavailable. It is far from being a golden Mecca that will instantly bring an unknown band recognition.

 

I still believe you have to use the tried and true method of performing live and building an audience and recognition the old fashioned way. The way I see it, the internet is just another tool to help you get the word out but far from the best tool.

[Kaspian]

Yeah, these programs are popular for the freeloader factor, nothing but. Once a proggy charges money people move on, plain and simple.

 

I wonder if going the charitable donation route would be the way to go. Not having fans donate money to a band, but for the band to pick up a cause and have, say, one dollar from every CD that is sold go to some charity, be it reducing 3rd would debt or whatever. A lot of people who pirate justify what they're doing because they say, "Oh, the money would just go to a bunch of suits and rich rock stars with more money than brains anyway, so to hell with them!" This way the pirates are effectively taking away money from starving children in Africa, or battered women, or whatever else a band is using some of their CD sales to help try and fix. It won't make piracy go away, but do any of you think it would be reduced, even a little if some of the money made of CD sales went to helping the less fortunate? It at least throws a lot of moral issues into the equation. I dunno, just some thoughts that have been floating in my head for a while.

[Kingnome]

 

Originally posted by Scheming Demon Interesting perspective. I think Bluestrat nailed it, though. People use those services because they're free. The internet is just another medium to use to advertise your music that was previously unavailable. It is far from being a golden Mecca that will instantly bring an unknown band recognition. I still believe you have to use the tried and true method of performing live and building an audience and recognition the old fashioned way. The way I see it, the internet is just another tool to help you get the word out but far from the best tool.

 

 

Yeah, but the point is, you'll never recoup the investment in your career if your music will always be available for free. Live shows would be the only way to make any money, and there are too many bands, and not enough days in the week.

What's the point of anyone investing in a band (whether it's you or a record co. or fans) when free is so much nicer.

[JimNdave]

The industry needs to lobby hard to attach a fee for copyright right at the ISP, which in turn would simply be passed on to the consumer. Then there is no getting around payment. The only issue would then be tracking downloads for the performing rights societies. If you want internet access and you download music you gotta pay!

[Kingnome]

 

Originally posted by JimNdave The industry needs to lobby hard to attach a fee for copyright right at the ISP, which in turn would simply be passed on to the consumer. Then there is no getting around payment. The only issue would then be tracking downloads for the performing rights societies. If you want internet access and you download music you gotta pay!

 

 

Wasn't there talk of installing a "tracker" of some kind in every pc sold in the US ? Seems to me I've heard of this before .

[purplemoss]

I tend to disagree with a lot of the posts. Lets face it the only ones really making money off the cd sales are the record companies and lawyers. For a band to truly make the cash they go on tour, and nothing can beat the real thing. I think this move will bring the music power back into the hands of the musician. Want to talk about a problem what about the lip syncing these bands do. just my opinion

[cgiben]

Musicians who play live gigs won't be much affected by "music piracy" as those who chase the CD-in-the-Sky pie. Here are the facts:

 

 

Wake up...smell the coffee...start focusing on performing live and building up your audiences by making sure your music gets exposure - give it away online.

 

Everyone complains that the record companies are failing to face the reality of the New Economy. I say the same is true for the majority of artists.

 

(imho)

[Tedddy]

Yeah bands need to tour and build an audience. THere is more to music than music-- there is the fun of being a fan, like being in a club. You see someone wearing a band t shirt that you listen to, and you feel a camaraderie with that person.

[BlueStrat]

Originally posted by cgiben

Musicians who play live gigs won't be much affected by "music piracy" as those who chase the CD-in-the-Sky pie. Here are the facts:

 

 

But the problem is, the very structure of the business restricts the type of people who are going to be playing. Rather than the most talented, the criteria will be based on who is available. This generally means young inexperienced guys with no families and no college to fall back on in the future. It's not a family friendly business, and relying on touring to make money is less likely to be profitable than selling CDs. Veteran players who may be great players are less likely to want to leave their wives and kids and risk their future as a family and as a financial entity to blow off down the road 300 days a year to work for peanuts. And you do work for peanuts. I toured in the 80s, when pay was higher than it is now, and live music more available. I'd go 5-6 weeks out , 2-3 days home, back out for 5-6 weeks. I did this for three and a half years. It cost me a marriage; fortunately there were no kids involved. The band earned 1600-2200 dollars a week plus rooms, but still, after all the expenses were paid, I got anywhere from 125-250 dollars a week. I sent home most of it, and ended up living on the road on 25-75 dollars a week. Not much of a life. See, you don't start out playing arenas or theaters. You play every little {censored}hole bar that will have you when you're touring, because weeknight gigs are hard to find these days, so you end up taking what you can get just to make it to the weekend, where you likely will end up playing for the door. If no one has heard of you, get ready to put next week's gas and food on the credit card. And you have to plan on playing each venue every 6-8 weeks like clockwork to build a following, and it usually takes about 3-5 times in a place before a buzz is created and people will turn out to see you. This is why selling my own self produced CDs is so helpful for guys like me. I get all the profit and it goes right back into my expenses, so I can afford to pay my guys at least close to what they're worth. Touring may be more profitable for nationally distributed guys but for up and comers, it's the CD sales that get them through the week.

[WARangel]

more required reading.

[cgiben]

To BlueStrat:

 

Thanks for the well thought-out reply. I know what you described has been the experience for many other artists/ bands. Just like anything else, touring can be a risk. It's a question of how wildly you dive into it - sounds like you went for the "gusto"!

 

Don't know when you toured heavily... the company I'm with now is building a means to leverage the promotional power of digitally-delivered music to help artists to more effectively tour - to play LIVE - while making money both from the gigs and from increased CD sales.

 

The way we figure it, tens of millions of consumers are discovering artists they had no way to discover prior to downloadable, sampleable, streamable music. And those consumers want to see many of these bands LIVE, in person, on stage. We have developed a means to find out where these consumers live, who they want to see perform live and to provide this knowledge to the artists, the talent and booking agents, the concert and club promoters, the venues and even recording labels.

 

When bands want to tour, they find out through our system where they have appreciable audiences. They contact the venues (who can verify that demand through our system), book a gig and let us know. We then alert the folks who wanted to see the band - we have their email addresses.

 

Aside from more profit from "the gate", music fans like to buy CD's BEFORE seeing a band live (and in many cases, after). Our system links them to the artist's CD sales page(s). Artists who play live sell more CD's - a hefty percentage of them at the venue. But they can sell even more prior to and the day after the gig - if they can make the offer to the audience members when they're not busy buying a beer or figuring out how to get into that Babe-over-there's pants.

 

Some elements of this are in place, others at prototype stage and a few on the drawing board and it's all patent pending. A growing number of artists are participating in this and participation is open to all artists who have web sites - FREE.

 

We hope to enhance profitability for the entire value chain that performs in, produces, hosts, finances, promotes and sells tickets for live music events, grow the size of the market by letting consumers get the live music they want to see locally and generally have fun doing it.

 

I'd like to connect personally with artists with your perspective as we move forward. We can learn a lot from you.

 

cgiben

Demand ID Systems

[BlueStrat]

 

Originally posted by purplemoss I tend to disagree with a lot of the posts. Lets face it the only ones really making money off the cd sales are the record companies and lawyers. For a band to truly make the cash they go on tour, and nothing can beat the real thing. I think this move will bring the music power back into the hands of the musician. Want to talk about a problem what about the lip syncing these bands do. just my opinion

 

 

Well, think about this: Even if a band only makes 2 bucks off a 17 dollar CD, it adds up. Lets say an average selling album only pulls down 250, 000 copies in sales. That's still a half a million in income to the band. Even if the record company gets 100k of it for cost recovery, that's still 400k to the band, plus royalties and publishing. But with touring, it may cost 40K to put on a show that brings in 50. No chump change, to be sure, but the point is the majority of musicians don't get rich touring. For every Aerosmith and Rolling Stones, there are 200 bands in 20 year old rented buses playing smaller venues barely selling enough tickets to pay their expenses. Think about it: you play a theater or college auditorium with 600 seats, selling tickets for 20 bucks. If you get 500 people, that's 10k. You have the cost of the venue rental, security, bond, the bus, fuel, the driver, stage manager, road crew, agent's commission, ticket vendor's commission, promoter's cut, etc etc. You're lucky to break even and if you're really lucky, you get 100 bucks a guy from the show, out of which you have to pay for meals, clothes, laundry, gear maintenance, haircuts, etc etc and if you have a family, you end up sending most of it home. If you do five shows a week and are lucky enough to earn 5 or 6 hundred bucks a week, or even a thosand, you have to travel 52 weeks a year to keep that up and you have to count on strong ticket sales everywhere you play (ain't gonna happen) and hope that none of the shows get cancelled or that the promoter doesn't skip out with all the money. As I said in another thread, touring is not romantic and not all that profitable. It is hard, boring, often lonely work, and unless you've been there and done that, don't just cavalierly say things like "musicians don't make money off CDs, they get it all off touring". If I were at that level again, I'd much rather get money off my records and be home with the kids than slugging it out in a bus 340 days a year.

[cgiben]

BlueStrat,

 

Sorry - you're probably a lot more successful artist than I thought. Because typical revenue for an artist from a CD sale is more like $0.72 per CD - about 1/3 of the $2 in your example.

 

Here's how that CD retail price becomes $0.72 for the average artist (signed) artist:

 

Retailers pay a record company $7-$11 and more for the CDs they sell for $11-$17.

 

Big-name artists may get 20% or more royalties. Most get 15% or less. When a CD goes gold (500,000 copies) or platinum (1 million), marketing costs drop and the record company's profits rise. Here's how the take on a typical $15 CD, one that's gone gold, is split:

 

CD packaging 5% ($0.75)

CD pressing 6% ($0.90)

Songwriter & publishing royalties 4% ($0.70 approx.)

Producer royalties 2% ($0.30)

Distribution 13% ($1.95)

Record company overhead (promotion, advertising and profit margin) 22% ($3.30)

Retailer overhead (operating expenses including employees and inventory, and profit margin) 38% ($5.70)

American Federation of Musicians retirement fund 1% ($0.15)

Artist royalties 9% ($1.35)

Remember, most major record companies' expenses/profits include self-owned distribution, CD packaging and CD pressing facilities, bringing the actual record company total to 45% ($6.90) of the $15 pie. Depending on an artist's contract, the total artist royalty will often be somewhere in the neighborhood of 6% ($0.90) on a $15 CD.

 

For a normal artist, that $0.90 is more like $0.70. Now what do the vast majority of artists do with that money? RECOUP the advances and marketing expenses "fronted" by the label. So the artists never see a penny (beyond what they were advanced when they signed).

 

Also, of the 32,000 new releases each year, only 250 sell more than 10,000 copies - that's 3/4 of 1%. The number of new releases that sell the 250,000 in your example is probably more like 1 in 1,000. So the name BlueStrat is a good way to go incognito if you are one of these big name artists used in your example.

 

But for 3/4 of 1% of new releases, bands"earn" $0.72 x 10,000 = $7,200 which they'll never see to even begin to divide it among themselves.

 

Now, you may say, "Hell, I wasn't referring to a big label deal - I get to keep $2 for every CD sold!" Fair enough. Now, good luck selling anywhere near 10,000 copies (Remember: less than 1% of new releases sell this many) if you don't have deep pockets to pay for marketing expenses yourself (which you'll then need to deduct from your $20,000 in revenues). Otherwise, you'll have to recoup the (indie?) label.

 

If your model for "the average" artist making money from CD sales is better than the industry standard described above, Harmony Central would be a good place for artists to learn the "How To".

[BlueStrat]

 

Originally posted by cgiben BlueStrat, Sorry - you're probably a lot more successful artist than I thought. Because typical revenue for an artist from a CD sale is more like $0.72 per CD - about 1/3 of the $2 in your example. Here's how that CD retail price becomes $0.72 for the average artist (signed) artist: Retailers pay a record company $7-$11 and more for the CDs they sell for $11-$17. Big-name artists may get 20% or more royalties. Most get 15% or less. When a CD goes gold (500,000 copies) or platinum (1 million), marketing costs drop and the record company's profits rise. Here's how the take on a typical $15 CD, one that's gone gold , is split: CD packaging 5% ($0.75) CD pressing 6% ($0.90) Songwriter & publishing royalties 4% ($0.70 approx.) Producer royalties 2% ($0.30) Distribution 13% ($1.95) Record company overhead (promotion, advertising and profit margin) 22% ($3.30) Retailer overhead (operating expenses including employees and inventory, and profit margin) 38% ($5.70) American Federation of Musicians retirement fund 1% ($0.15) Artist royalties 9% ($1.35) Remember, most major record companies' expenses/profits include self-owned distribution, CD packaging and CD pressing facilities, bringing the actual record company total to 45% ($6.90) of the $15 pie. Depending on an artist's contract, the total artist royalty will often be somewhere in the neighborhood of 6% ($0.90) on a $15 CD. For a normal artist, that $0.90 is more like $0.70. Now what do the vast majority of artists do with that money? RECOUP the advances and marketing expenses "fronted" by the label. So the artists never see a penny (beyond what they were advanced when they signed). Also, of the 32,000 new releases each year, only 250 sell more than 10,000 copies - that's 3/4 of 1%. The number of new releases that sell the 250,000 in your example is probably more like 1 in 1,000. So the name BlueStrat is a good way to go incognito if you are one of these big name artists used in your example. But for 3/4 of 1% of new releases, bands"earn" $0.72 x 10,000 = $7,200 which they'll never see to even begin to divide it among themselves. Now, you may say, "Hell, I wasn't referring to a big label deal - I get to keep $2 for every CD sold!" Fair enough. Now, good luck selling anywhere near 10,000 copies (Remember: less than 1% of new releases sell this many) if you don't have deep pockets to pay for marketing expenses yourself (which you'll then need to deduct from your $20,000 in revenues). Otherwise, you'll have to recoup the (indie?) label. If your model for "the average" artist making money from CD sales is better than the industry standard described above, Harmony Central would be a good place for artists to learn the "How To".

 

 

 

Any artist who would settle for a deal like that needs to a)shoot their entertainment lawyer and b)get out of the business. I'm not a big name by any means. But though the figures you quoted may be the average, there are far too many name players out there with fat bank accounts, driving Ferraris and living in the Hollywood Hills for this to be universal. The guys I know on labels average about 2 bucks a CD.

[jonosing]

Bluestrat, I think your points about touring are compelling, and your experience, combined with what we've all been reading about the sorry state of the business end of music, leads me to feel that change should be EMBRACED!

 

That's right, let's embrace it. Let's be realistic about change. Nothing stays the same forever, and music is one of the most basic means of human expression. People are willing to spend tens of millions of dollars for musical entertainment. That's not changing overnight. It seems like the thing that's changing is a decades-old business model used by record companies to drive profits. Musicians find it VERY HARD to find sympathy for ailing record companies, knowing full well how musicians have been taken advantage of since the first days of recorded music.

 

Embracing change means we have to acknowledge that being a musician hasn't changed much. We still are going to make pennies, most of us will never work professionally, and those who do will still not make the lavish living we all desire. Our youthful expectations about a life in music were not probably based in reality. If they were, we might have chosen differently. But for me, I love music, and I'll play it until I die, regardless of the money. I have a day job, and I can afford to play out once a month and record and express myself and still have a house that keeps the rain out. I'm not famous and never will be. Instead, I'm happy with what I have and who I am.

 

So what's my point? Music is still music, and will survive. How we pay for it, what we pay for, and how we GET paid will probably change, but music is not going anywhere. The future is uncertain, but I am not afraid.

 

jono

[Outkaster]

 

Originally posted by jonosing Bluestrat, I think your points about touring are compelling, and your experience, combined with what we've all been reading about the sorry state of the business end of music, leads me to feel that change should be EMBRACED! That's right, let's embrace it. Let's be realistic about change. Nothing stays the same forever, and music is one of the most basic means of human expression. People are willing to spend tens of millions of dollars for musical entertainment. That's not changing overnight. It seems like the thing that's changing is a decades-old business model used by record companies to drive profits. Musicians find it VERY HARD to find sympathy for ailing record companies, knowing full well how musicians have been taken advantage of since the first days of recorded music. Embracing change means we have to acknowledge that being a musician hasn't changed much. We still are going to make pennies, most of us will never work professionally, and those who do will still not make the lavish living we all desire. Our youthful expectations about a life in music were not probably based in reality. If they were, we might have chosen differently. But for me, I love music, and I'll play it until I die, regardless of the money. I have a day job, and I can afford to play out once a month and record and express myself and still have a house that keeps the rain out. I'm not famous and never will be. Instead, I'm happy with what I have and who I am. So what's my point? Music is still music, and will survive. How we pay for it, what we pay for, and how we GET paid will probably change, but music is not going anywhere. The future is uncertain, but I am not afraid. jono

 

 

Nice post and comments it was well written. You know not to get off topic or anything I guess that through time you go through a lot as a musician constantly getting beaten down. It sometimes makes you beleive people owe you things. I tried so hard to play with bands for so long, to take lessons, to be a good player and not burn bridges. I still ended up with no where to go. I was in the gym the other day and the lead singer of the group Foreigner lives in town and he was working out. I thought about going up to him and see if had any need for a keyboard player? I know for a fact the orginal player is not there and that they tour and do shows once in a while. I thought about giving him a resume. but than thought against it because he is recovering from a tumor. See "Behind the Music on VH1" for more details. but I knew deep down I could play with him just to get my foot in the door.

I guess what I am saying is that embracing things is fine and even those of that have day jobs will still wonder. Unless you "make it" you will wonder "what if" or "why am I not a professional. I have had a hard time with this and as I approach my late 30's. I will not give up but you have to sometimes deal with what life gives you. Point also is you have not give up.

[BlueStrat]

 

Originally posted by jonosing Bluestrat, I think your points about touring are compelling, and your experience, combined with what we've all been reading about the sorry state of the business end of music, leads me to feel that change should be EMBRACED! That's right, let's embrace it. Let's be realistic about change. Nothing stays the same forever, and music is one of the most basic means of human expression. People are willing to spend tens of millions of dollars for musical entertainment. That's not changing overnight. It seems like the thing that's changing is a decades-old business model used by record companies to drive profits. Musicians find it VERY HARD to find sympathy for ailing record companies, knowing full well how musicians have been taken advantage of since the first days of recorded music. Embracing change means we have to acknowledge that being a musician hasn't changed much. We still are going to make pennies, most of us will never work professionally, and those who do will still not make the lavish living we all desire. Our youthful expectations about a life in music were not probably based in reality. If they were, we might have chosen differently. But for me, I love music, and I'll play it until I die, regardless of the money. I have a day job, and I can afford to play out once a month and record and express myself and still have a house that keeps the rain out. I'm not famous and never will be. Instead, I'm happy with what I have and who I am. So what's my point? Music is still music, and will survive. How we pay for it, what we pay for, and how we GET paid will probably change, but music is not going anywhere. The future is uncertain, but I am not afraid. jono

 

 

 

It has already changed a great deal in the past 30 years. In the late 60s-early 70s, the entire record business was controlled by a few major labels and their spinoff subsidiaries. You could not make a record practically without a label's support. It was something that , because of the cost involved and the equipment needed to do it, not everyone could do. So bands worked hard to get really good and try to get signed. Record companies acted as gatekeepers, for better or worse, and signed only the acts that were really good or really commercial. Today that's all changed. Independent labels far outnumber the majors today. And any swinging schlong with a Squier and a home computer can make a CD, which is not necessarily a good thing, IMO. Anybody with mediocre songs and little to no talent can enter the market. If they're not good, of course they won't sell much, but in the meantime it gluts the market with a lot of dreck to wade through to find the good stuff. It also makes music a nearly valueless commodity in an entertainment market that has many more options than 30 years ago. When I was a kid, we had one theater in town that showed a double feature. Today we have multiplex cinemas and can see any one of two dozen movies whenever we want. We had 4 channels on TV. Now we have hundreds. We had no internet, no digital radio, no satellite...all these things are competing for dollars with an ever diluted music business fast becoming choked with mediocre amature talent.

 

What else has changed is the proliferation of weak bands that are filled with members who can barely play. Thet get spots at original music clubs and play their 8 original songs and make about 10 bucks apiece if they're lucky. Many have not spent a single minute in a cover band learning how decent music is put together and learning some chops. They seem to think that every adolescent feeling is worthy of writing a song about. The most coddled and priveledged generation in the history of the world must express their rage at the unfairness of life and scream "{censored}!" a lot into the microphone. All this is fine of course, and perfectly within their right, but again is just more mediocre dreck that the paying public must use their shrinking resources to wade through to find anything good.

 

Speaking of live performance, twenty years ago I had a 4 piece road band with a sound and light man. We made 1600-2200 dollars weekly plus rooms for playing between 4-6 nights a week. This was good money then, because you could buy gas for 60 cents a gallon, smokes for .75, etc etc. Now you're lucky to get a weekend somewhere for 800 bucks. The cost of business has gone way up for clubowners who face rising liquor and property taxes, rising utility costs, liability insurance, employee costs, and yet live with the reality that they can only charge so much for a drink before people will no longer pay it. Add in the tougher drunk driving laws and it gets harder to get people out. So just one weekend with a lame band can do a club in for the month.

 

Bottom line, a lot has already changed and not for the better for the working musician. I think we need to look at what we embrace before we embrace it. Not all change is desirable, and it perplexes me how many musicians there are who are either so disdainful of the value of their craft or so in need of an ego boost that they'll go out and give it away just to play, and continually argue for change that has so far proven to mean less and less income for the musician. Sorry to sound like an old fart, but those of us who have seen what it was like and what it's like now are for the most part not hopeful.

[jonosing]

Bluestrat. Buddy. LIGHTEN UP!!

 

Have you ever heard the saying the world is what we make it? You have the most negative attitude of other musicians I have ever seen. Let people do what they want! I agree music is tough, and there sure is alot stuff out there that's not that great. But the music business is a business, and it is not music itself. Music itself is fine. Since when did more people having an ability to express themselves become bad? Because they aren't capable of meeting YOUR standards? Buddy, I don't WANT to meet your standards.

 

And I would be remiss if I didn't ask this. Are you still playing the same music you played 20 years ago? Do you think that maybe your style of music is going out of fashion, and that has more to do with how rough it is for you, and not the fact that music just sucks these days?

 

I don't say these things to be mean. I just think you need to lighten up some. Take a valium, get a blowjob from a midget, do something!